Telecom antitrust suit can't proceed-top US court
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1099055010.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an antitrust lawsuit against Verizon and other regional Bell companies cannot proceed without specific allegations to back it up. By a 7-2 vote, the justices reversed a U.S. appeals court ruling that allowed the class action antitrust lawsuit to go forward on a general allegation that Verizon predecessor Bell Atlantic Co. and other Bell companies had conspired not to compete in each other's territories.
"We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed," Justice David Souter wrote for the court majority.
At issue is a class action lawsuit against Bell Atlantic, which contends that lack of competition for local telephone service and "parallel conduct" of the regional Bells were evidence of an antitrust conspiracy.
More than a decade after the court-ordered breakup of AT&T into seven regional Bells, Congress passed a landmark legislation in 1996 designed to foster competition among carriers. It required regional Bells such as Verizon to make their networks available to rivals in exchange for gaining access to the lucrative long-distance voice and data markets.
The case was dismissed by a district court judge, who said the plaintiffs could not sue based only on a "bare-bones" allegation of conspiracy.
But that decision was reversed by a federal appeals court in New York, which ruled the case should not be dismissed unless the charges were implausible.
The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division has sided with the telephone companies, arguing that "parallel action and inaction" alone was not enough to provide a basis for an antitrust lawsuit.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion agreed, ruling that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy is not enough. There must be enough facts to suggest an agreement was made, Souter said.
Related listings
-
Federal court: Three guilty of FEMA fraud
Lawyer Blogs 05/20/2007[##_1L|1145869747.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]Three people have been sentenced in federal court in Biloxi on charges of illegally receiving disaster payments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for debris cleanup after Hurricane ...
-
No-Confidence Vote Sought on Gonzales
Lawyer Blogs 05/18/2007[##_1L|1317403199.jpg|width="100" height="131" alt=""|_##]Two leading Senate Democrats called for a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales yesterday as political pressure for his resignation intensified in the wake of revelatio...
-
White House, senators strike immigration reform deal
Lawyer Blogs 05/18/2007[##_1L|1139034333.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]Key US senators from both political parties and White House cabinet officers reached a tentative agreement on immigration reform on Thursday, after weeks of negotiations. The proposal, which P...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.